The radical notion that women are adults

Michelle Obama is a feminist nightmare? You’re goddamn right she is!

This is Michelle Cottle, a delightfully deluded and viciously misogynist contributor at Politico, who writes that First Lady Michelle Obama has betrayed the sisterhood by caring about her husband, her children, food for the nation’s children (all of them), wounded soldiers and … gasp! Literacy!

The ability to read?

Who needs that?

Here, finally, was an issue worthy of the Ivy-educated, blue-chip law firm-trained first lady, a departure from the safely, soothingly domestic causes she had previously embraced. Gardening? Tending wounded soldiers? Reading to children? “She essentially became the English lady of the manor, Tory Party, circa 1830s,” feminist Linda Hirshman says.

Let’s think this through, shall we?

Michelle cares about her husband.

Michelle’s husband Barry works long hours, travels extensively, shoulders a wee bit of responsibility, and faces down some formidable opposition to his ideas about how to do his job. He answers not to an immediate superior, but to the ENTIRE FUCKING NATION.

No pressure.

Barry and Michelle have two children. When Barry got his job, Michelle realized that there was more at stake than just her own personal happiness and she made a choice: she would be there for Barry, and in doing so, be there for their children when he couldn’t be.

What a dumb bitch.

She went to law school, people! Can’t she afford some other brown lady to raise up those children for her, just like all the white ladies do? What’s the matter, Michelle? Something about that feel not quite right?

While there are many, many fault lines in feminism, I think this attack on Michelle Obama highlights one of the most important ones: feminism hates black women in particular, especially when black women align their interests with the men in their community rather than the white ladies who would rather black women fall in line, after they are finished picking up the white lady’s kids from school, making dinner for the white lady’s husband and ironing the white lady’s shirts, which she needs to do her important job as an administrative assistant for some man who is not her husband.

Since when have black women had the luxury of being at home, gardening and caring for their own children rather than someone else’s? What would happen if a whole lot of black women decided Michelle and Barry had the right idea and that the nuclear family is, after all, the best form of family organization? What if they stopped cooking and cleaning and gardening and ironing and raising white children and decided to spend all that energy on their own communities and their own families?

Feminist nightmare indeed.

This faultline has been in feminism since it’s very inception. White women have done a glorious job convincing themselves and countless millions of others that they have somehow managed to “catch up” with the work men have always done and are now participating on more or less equal footing in the labor market. The wage gap is closing! More women in the board rooms! Women are graduating in record numbers from colleges and universities!

In the first place, it’s all a giant smokescreen obscuring the fact that most women are doing nothing more than HOUSEWORK in the labor force, earning college degrees in hard subjects like reading, dancing, feeling and caring for small children, while men continue to design, build, operate, maintain and repair the communication, energy, transportation, sanitation and protective services infrastructure that makes all the housework jobs even possible.

And in the second place, the women feminism champions are by and large RICH WHITE WOMEN, who go out of their homes every day to perform some housewifely service for some man other than their husbands and leave the work their own families entail to women of color and poor women, who must neglect their own children and husbands to provide for the white woman’s.

All the discussion about “intersectionality” and “inclusiveness” in mainstream feminism is pure sophistry: if feminism were to address the interests of ALL women, it would quickly collapse, because the white ladies cannot engage in their teary-eyed hand wringing over the plight of poor colored ladies without immediately implicating themselves as the principal source of racism and exploitation.

Intersectionality and inclusiveness has never been part of feminism and never can be.

You know where women of color and poor women WILL find their own unique perspectives and interests addressed?

In the Men’s Human Rights Movement – MHRM. The moment women of color put the interests of their sons, brothers, husbands, fathers, grandfathers, uncles, nephews and every other black man at the center of their quest for equal rights and responsibilities, they will find the inclusiveness feminism can never deliver.

Feminism promises equality, but is only really interested in equality that delivers a benefit to white women. Where is the cry for equal sentencing before the courts of law? Where is the cry that 50% of all workplace related deaths are women? Where is the cry that half of the nation’s garbage collectors and sewage treatment workers are women? Where is the cry that half of all the homeless and indigent be women?

Ew. Icky. Pick up garbage? Gross! And who cares about criminal sentencing anyways? It’s mostly black thugs who get the harshest sentences, and the more of them in jail, the easier it is to exploit the women left behind. Please don’t forget to vacuum the cat hairs off my couch, Jemima, and make sure you give Bootsie her fresh liver pate. You did make her fresh liver pate, right?

I will no doubt be accused of conspiracy: feminists caaaaaaare about black women and they aren’t silent about wildly disproportionate sentencing of young black men because they want a steady supply of exploitable domestic labor. No, no, no. That’s just a coincidence.

Men of color have long known that the MHRM has inclusiveness at its core, as have gay men, disabled men, poor men, every other category of man you can think of: no condition other than the simple fact of biological sex comes in to play when it comes to infant genital mutilation. Boys, no what matter their skin color, social status, ethnicity, ability – irrespective of any social condition you can think of – can be legally mutilated during infancy. Pick any other issue: suicide doesn’t care how rich you are, the school system doesn’t care what color your skin is – boys of every class and race and group will be marginalized.

Women of color have been trying for 80 years to be included in the broad category of “women” that feminism purports to represent.

It will never happen.

And when very successful, accomplished black women like Michelle Obama decide to make their husband and children a priority, they are called “traitors” and “nightmares”.

Nightmares: black and scary.

But in Michelle Obama’s story lies a kernel of truth, a breath of freedom and honesty and a message we need to get out to women of color in particular: the civil rights of men ARE the civil rights of women.

All women.

We cannot possibly be equal until we are ALL equal.

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.

Abraham Lincoln

The truth is very simple: until men, all men and not just rich white men have equal rights under the law, no man or woman will have equal rights.

Waiting for rich white women arguing with rich white men to notice the interests of everyone is like waiting for a lioness to care about the plight of the earthworms who create the soil that nurtures the life of her entire world.

It won’t happen. 20/20 says the MHRM lives in the underbelly of the internet. The deep dark recesses. Well, that’s where life begins, no?

It might be dark down here at the moment, but we aren’t afraid of the dark. Even when the dark we are talking about is the color of your skin.

I miss writing here so much! My insufferable ego has come back to bite me in the ass, though. I submitted the first part of my literature review to my supervisor and she liked it so much she submitted it for inclusion in a textbook on Bioinformatics.

It was accepted!

Fabulous, right? Yay me! I’m being published!

I have until January 30th to complete the review.

Holy fuck! Most candidates will take up to a year to complete a lit review. I have 8 weeks. Because I was so thrilled to get the pat on the head from a publisher.

The upside is that by agreeing to write a book chapter, I will essentially be done my lit review after January and then it’s data collection time, which will proceed much more slowly, and give me a bit of free time to do some blogging. Or at least that is my hope.

Still waiting for notes from my literary agent on the novel, too.

It’s nice to have these problems, let me tell you.

But I do miss blogging here everyday and I will absolutely get back to it once the time becomes available.

i guess I don’t understand this article. The First Wookie is an ugly nosy busybody that is more than willing to use the force of government (read: guns) to tell me what I should eat an how much I should exercise. I see no philosophical difference between her and feminist who have managed to manipulate the law to seek the ends they deem are important.

Secondly, I doubt that the Wookie does very little actual parenting. She sends her kids to a private school. New if she home schooled her kids, then I would be impressed.

3rd. Her husband is an incompetent empty suit. And she decided to ride his coattails. That doesn’t impress me much either.

Nah, the difference between this Wookie and and feminism is something like the difference between gonorrhea and syphilis.

Michelle Obama is not ugly and calling her a Wookie is really, really racist. I think you can disagree with her politically and hate on Obama’s policies without resorting to calling Michelle ugly and I can only take “Wookie” to mean Chewbacca? Is there some other meaning I am not aware of?

The point was that feminism rejects Michelle as a role model because she puts her husband and children first, she’s beautiful and she takes an interest in children’s welfare and other traditionally feminine pursuits.

Mac Dale

She just stated that “Women are smarter than men.” Methinks she may be more feminazi than earlier thought. I did have a favourable opinion of her until she uttered that blanket statement. Wonder what would happen if Obama made that statement and reversed the role…world war 3?

hey Troy, So the baby storm trooper asks Daddy Storm Trooper what’s for dinner. Daddy Storm Trooper replies, ‘Wookie Steak’, ‘is it any good’ asks the baby storm trooper? Nah, ‘It’s a little chewy”…..That should be the only Wookie reference on this site. Please watch your fucking language, your points are sort of ok, but the Wookie reference makes you sound like a racist and that is just bullshit. all the best. PPP

…is an ugly nosy busybody that is more than willing to use the force of government (read: guns) to tell me what I should eat an how much I should exercise.

Well, that’s just lying. No one in the Federal government is using force or guns to “tell” you what to eat or how much to exercise. The First Lady is suggesting that kids perhaps should eat healthier foods and move around a bit instead of playing video games. Fascism!!

And no one is forcing you to change what you eat or how you exercise. Stuff yourself with Big Macs all you want. The problem is that the rest of us are paying for it.

From the notorious bastion of liberalism, the New York Post: “New York City hospitals are being weighed down by patients with deadly, obesity-related diabetes. New data show that there were 232,254 hospitalizations of diabetic patients in 2011.” That’s 1 in 4 hospital admissions are for obesity-related disease. See here for more.

Want to solve the problem of high medical costs? Convince people to not be fat. That’s one huge step in the right direction.

feministnonfiction premise: “While it is absolutely true that pregnancy and breastfeeding are parenting tasks that cannot be shared, that is truly as far as sexed division of labor in parenting has to go.”

Setting aside the feminist view on the lopsided male presence in technical professions, not all men are in technical professions. To your point that “men continue to design, build, operate, maintain and repair the communication, energy, transportation, sanitation and protective services infrastructure”, the solution feministnonfiction may propose is redesigning professions that could be performed sufficiently (if differently) by men or women so that the professions favor and advantage women over men. From there, feministnonfiction would propose to solve the dilemma of white vs colored sisterhood by redefining gender roles so that the subsequently displaced men take over domestic/child-rearing duties from women while the workplace is reorganized to facilitate non-transferable female functions such as pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Nitpick: “The moment women of color put the interests of their sons, brothers, husbands, fathers, grandfathers, uncles, nephews and every other black man at the center of their quest for equal rights and responsibilities …”

Black people aren’t the only people of color. Moreso in the context of this post, non-white domestic workers aren’t only black.

Good point, Eric. Hispanic, Asian, East Asian, Native American – there are a lot of groups I’m conflating with “black”. I should take the time to delineate more carefully, but I’ll offer the caveat that as far as white women hiring domestic labor are concerned, they don’t really give a shit what anyone’s ethnic or racial background happens to be, as long as the work gets done for shitty wages and no benefits. Whether the maid is from Ecuador or the Philippines or Tobago doesn’t really concern them – as long as they are easily exploited.

And personally, I don’t agree that men can simply take over once breastfeeding is complete, unless we’re talking extended breastfeeding. An appropriately bonded infant is not ready for long separations from mama for several years, and in my personal experience, the person with whom they are most comfortable is Daddy.

The importance of fathers really, really kicks at after about age four and continues throughout childhood and adolescence. My now 11 year old was inseparable from me without tons of anxiety and tears for the first two years. Now at 11, her father is her closest confidante, and that is exactly how it should be. The fact that she feels so incredibly close to her dad makes me think I have done my job brilliantly.

I think we are designed by evolution: women take care of the very small children and men take care of the older children and initiate them into the ways of the world. Flipping that script fucks everything up. Women are not equipped to guide older children – that’s why teenagers without fathers have such a tough time.

That’s not to say that men CAN’T care for babies or women CAN’T raise decent teenagers, but en masse?

No way.

Recipe for disaster. Little babies need their mommies. Older children need their daddies.

Not want.

Need.

Eric

Based on stay-at-home-dad vs hired help, though, if feminist moms presumptively remove themselves as a domestic/child-rearing option in order to stay committed to work, then is the stay-at-home-dad an equal, better, or preferred option for feminists compared to non-white female domestic hired help?

If so, and feminists push men into taking over hitherto feminine domestic roles, would they then assign equal status to colored women in the feminist sisterhood?

I see what you mean. Of course, the biological father is the preferred choice.

An interesting thought experiment. It could work exactly that way. WOC would achieve recognition and the stay-at-home dads would then be the scorned group.

Eric

I agree with you about the posture by feminists, but I wonder whether the root of feminist motivation is anti-anything or whether they’re basically motivated by solipsistic wants.

If it’s solipsism, then I don’t think “feminism hates black women in particular”. In that case, feminists use declasse black women and other women of color as means to an end, similarly to how they feel entitled to the services, obeisance, and resources of men. If the feminists’ selfish end can be fulfilled another way, even a preferred way, such as by men who’ve been displaced by women in feminist-reorganized workplaces (the classic 2 birds with 1 stone solution), then I don’t know that feminists care what women of color do with themselves from there – as long as they don’t get in the way of feminists and their wants.

is the stay-at-home-dad an equal, better, or preferred option for feminists compared to non-white female domestic hired help?

Feminists are in a bind here. They’re really big on “paid work” which was the primary argument in denigrating stay-at-home-moms because their labor was “unpaid” and therefore not valued by society. Later they point to the low pay in child-care work as furthering that meme, using it to criticize women who choose to leave the labor force to care for their families.

To feminists, child care is apparently demeaning work, but it should be highly compensated when done by women for in the commercial world. And at the same time, they think that men should shoulder more of the burden of child care and stay at home instead of women. Of course, this work would be “unpaid” and therefore of little value.

So, to answer your question, the stay-at-home-dad is lower than whale spit compared to the non-white female domestic hired help (paid minimum wage and no benefits, so sad).

Which is exactly where feminists want men.

Feminism. The double-think, it burns….

Joe

Wow. Came out of left field. Made me think about something completely new. Thanks for that. Epic post.

Fred Flange, Into the Wild

It is certainly true that feminism has crippled itself by ignoring black folk as other than their domestics, and both black women writers (as well as JFG’s Obisidian) have been telling third-wave feminists “what have you done for US lately?” and “thanks, WE’LL call YOU” about knuckling under and doing what whitey says.

But the sphere, like the GOP, does itself no favors either, with the so-called HBD boosters(read: “New Eugenics”), “neo-reactionaries” and stone racists at places like CH. I have always been a big believer in coalitions to get things done – but to get coalitions you have to ally with people who WON’T see eye to eye on everything, or (gasp!) think the eact same politically correct GOOD THOUGHTS. That’s what it will take.

Eric

You’re lumping together the GOP, alt-right, and Manosphere. They’re distinct communities. The Manosphere is itself an umbrella term that covers distinct communities, most of which aren’t extrovertly political.

Liam

I agree!

You can agree with the MHRM and not be conservative. Human rights are apolitical.

There are, of course, those who believe that being a good liberal means being a good feminist, just like those who believe that being a good conservative has to include membership and full throated support of the NRA, but it does not have to be so.

Fred Flange, Into the Wild

I do not lump them all together. Yes they are different groups with different issues. One can be a member of one and not agree with the others. (Remember what I said about coalition building, though; the error of refusing to ally oneself with another group over PC thinking is not limited to the Left or the Right). My only point is they are all making the same mistake by ignoring large groups who could be allies – in fact – as JB her self says – just like the third wave feminists are doing! That’s all.

Eric

My comment was a reaction to this: “But the sphere, like the GOP, does itself no favors either, with the so-called HBD boosters(read: “New Eugenics”), “neo-reactionaries” and stone racists at places like CH.”

Fred Flange, Into the Wild

I stand by what I said but will clarify. No the GOP is not the sphere. I used it for comparison – the GOP admits it has trouble reaching out to minorities. The other items, though, the HBD, neoreactionaries, and racism – can all be found at CH, pretty much in the comments, yes, but there. I know. I’ve read it and still do. It’s a shame really, when their discussion sticks to Game and Game theory they are a breath of fresh air. They and other alt-right leaning sites (sphere or not) have every right to say what they want. But they shouldn’t be surprised that minority-heritage men aren’t signing up to join in.

I recently ventured over to CH and was surprised by the blatant racism. I have a theory as to why “the manosphere” seems to attract the white supremacists, neo-fascists, chauvinists, and uncategorized bigots, but have to finish flushing it out. I agree, though, that “human rights” in general are just that and that these issues needn’t be considered special interests. I think this is definitely a topic that a very broad-based coalition could be built upon. In fact, I think that shifting to coalition politics rather than party politics is the only way conservatism will survive in this country. But our political climate at the moment causes individuals to ostracize anyone who does not toe their particular party line.

jabrwok

I have a theory as to why “the manosphere” seems to attract the white supremacists, neo-fascists, chauvinists, and uncategorized bigots,

I think a lot of that is that the manosphere provides a venue where men can blow off steam about a lot of frustrations that it’s impolitic to mention elsewhere. At work or in most social settings one can’t bitch about feminism. Can’t mention minority crime rates. Can’t complain about Affirmative Action or welfare. There’s a LOT of that kind of “suppression of dissent”, so when men find a place where they *can* discuss such things, they (we) often let the anger and frustration flow. I suspect that many of the men who come across as bigots are just acting out. Some may even be going the “might as well embrace the crime if I’m going to do the time anyway” attitude. Call us fascists and haters long enough, and why *not* embrace it? Everyone else seems to have done so.

When the pendulum swings back from the current Progressive peak, things may get very ugly.

I understand that there’s the pressure of political correctness, but everyone who lives in this society has to live with the crime rates, unemployment, etc. Being concerned about such things is not what raises a red flag, it’s insisting on one particular interpretation of whatever is wrong in society: “X group is simply inferior.”

jabrwok

I haven’t seen that. What I’ve seen is a general disgust at, specifically black, crime, fatherlessness, anti-educational attitudes, welfare dependence, and so on. When many/most member of a particular race *act* like they’re inferior, it’s difficult not to conclude that they are.

Me, I blame it on the culture that the Left has encouraged ever since the Sixties, paying for out-of-wedlock births, encouraging self-defeating victimization narratives, etc. Unfortunately the *effects* are the same.

There are always exceptions of course, and if we read/saw more about the Thomas Sowells and the Temar Boggs’ than we do about the Al Sharptons and Trayvon Martins, then there would be less of this sense of futility and general contempt. IMO anyway.

I can’t speak to what you have or haven’t seen, but I will say that the comment sections are replete with whatever type of “ism” you want to find, often with much energy devoted to squeezing in scientific and Census data to back into a pre-decided conclusion.

You say that when “they acting inferior,” so does every white American base his/her individual identity on what the rural methheads are doing, the Kardashians, or the serial killers that have shot up schools and public officials? I *will* write a book one day about how white people view themselves as individuals with an identity distinguished from everyone else, but view minorities as having a group identity where each member of the group must be magically linked. It’s completely inconsistent and the main reason that most don’t understand their own racism.

You have made my point for me, in concluding that the behavior you observe is caused by race rather than, say, class. Studies have shown that when socioeconomic class is accounted for, the disparities between races in the US evens out. But a lot of white conservatives aren’t interested in hearing that because they are already committed to the idea that it is a “they” problem rather than a “we” problem–we being the United States. That is exactly what I’m talking about.

You have made my point for me, in concluding that the behavior you observe is caused by race rather than, say, class.

If that’s what you took from what I said then you didn’t read what I wrote. I specifically said “Me, I blame it on the culture that the Left has encouraged ever since the Sixties, paying for out-of-wedlock births, encouraging self-defeating victimization narratives, etc.”.

Culture, not race.

And *you*, with your insistence that I see people in terms of their race first and their culture not at all, are exemplifying the attitude that drives many white people (not just men) up the wall. You’re assuming that I’m a racist and then distorting what I say to fit that narrative. And then you act surprised when the men on the receiving end of that attitude get tired and angry.

As for your question regarding whether white people see ourselves in terms of the worst examples of white people, of course not. But then we haven’t been on the receiving end of a pedagogical philosophy for the past 4+ years telling us that dissent was equal to betraying our race, and that we’re all of us just members of our race rather than individuals. Blacks, and to a lesser extent other minorities, *have* been subject to such a propaganda campaign. Hence the massive, and idiotic, solidarity towards O.J. or Trayvon Martin.

I was referring to the specific quote, “when many/most act like they are inferior, it’s not difficult to conclude that they are.” I didn’t pull that out of thin air.

I did not call you a racist–I began my comments speaking only about what I’ve seen on blogs and you came to their defense. I do think that what you posted that I quoted is based on racist ideas; unless you meant something other than what you wrote.

To further clarify, I will ask: Does white American society not have a history of racism? 26% of the *still living* U.S. white population was born during segregation and told implicitly and explicitly that blacks are inherently inferior. Many, if not most, were OK with this situation. These individuals had children that they taught and raised, and have grandchildren. So, given that fact, how is it that black people as individuals can be grouped as being a certain way because of a cultural history, but whites cannot? That is an inconsistent application of how culture affects individuals and groups.

jabrwok

I never said that whites cannot be grouped in a certain way, though given the much greater number and diversity of whites compared to blacks in this country, attempting to do is fairly silly (compare voting patters among whites vs. blacks if you don’t believe there’s more diversity among the former than the latter). I also never said that all blacks act inferior, only that enough do that it’s not surprising that many people take such behavior to be the mean, and judge blacks in general by that standard. Blacks themselves have been known to do this as well.

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved…. After all we have been through. Just to think we can’t walk down our own streets, how humiliating. – Jesse Jackson”.

jabrwok

I couldn’t parse what you were trying to say, so I ignored it. If you want to clarify the relevant passage, I’ve copied it below and replied as best I can based on what I think you’re trying to say.

You say that when “they [are] acting inferior,” so does every white American base his/her individual identity on what the rural methheads are doing, the Kardashians, or the serial killers that have shot up schools and public officials?

The discussion wasn’t about in-group perception, but rather perception of the group by *other* groups. How blacks, or whites, perceive their own groups is irrelevant.

I did not call you a racist

This is not consistent with this:

You have made my point for me, in concluding that the behavior you observe is caused by race rather than, say, class

I never concluded that the behavior of blacks is caused by their race. As I said above, it’s the culture that the Left has fostered on them for the past several decades, and while not all blacks have adopted that culture, far too many have, resulting in 50% of the violent crime in this country being committed by young, black men, and a 70%+ illegitimacy and single-motherhood rate in the black community. Recognition of these cultural pathologies, and disdain for them, does not constitute racism.

Red pill isn’t the truth for all. It’s not a membership with a normative set of ideas. Rather, red pill promotes inquiry that’s subversive in the rejection of politically correct social thought policing. Red pill is this generation’s beatnik unplugging from the zeitgeist.

I disagree with CH’s white nationalism, but I agree with his championship of red-pill inquiry.

Coalition politics is not a priority of the red pill, though coalition politics can spawn in the red pill ecosystem.

You are epic and really so the feminists are aiming to make America their north Korean feminist land?

Fred FlintStein

Judgebitch! You have returned!!
Yay!!
I was just skimming over the latest stupid A-Man-Duh MaggotCot article…
(They are too unbearable to read all the way though)
And thinking……where is judgeBitch now?
Who will counter this nonsense?
I am so glad you have returned…we need you!!

Fred FlintStein

I don’t type very well…..but you get the idea..
Good to have you back. judgybitch!

Good to see you back, if briefly, JB. You have a huge amount on your plate, so we understand the hiatus.

But to the post: Feminism is all about choice. As long as you choose the “correct” path based on what feminism approves. If a woman chooses something different than the feminist dogma du jour then it’s not really a choice. Because…reasons. Patriarchy!!

Michele Obama is a black woman who won’t dance to their tune. They can’t really complain too loudly, but they’ll still seethe at their inability to control her.

An independent woman is great, as long as she’s dependent on feminist ideology instead of a man…

Yay!! It’s judgybitch!! This post was EPIC. I need to re-read. I’m black and it never fails to amaze me how many black women tell me how feminism helps “us”. Oh, oh, oh. I just can’t.

Thanks for blowing the whistle, even as your critics wail and whinge.

Gaius Baltar

“In the Men’s Human Rights Movement – MHRM. The moment women of color put the interests of their sons, brothers, husbands, fathers, grandfathers, uncles, nephews and every other black man at the center of their quest for equal rights and responsibilities, they will find the inclusiveness feminism can never deliver.”

I’d like to give black women credit for having done this, consistently, for decades. I’ve very rarely seen the sort of man-hate that white feminists spew coming from black women, and then only from black women who were totally colonized. I know what you’re saying with this and I agree, but I think that most black women who are social justice activists are incapable of blinding themselves to the plight of black men the way white feminists do (and, seemingly, must).

White feminism is dependent on a denial of white privilege. Black womanism is largely incapable of that ignorance because capitalist and anti-family BS is patently harmful to blacks.